I find it odd how people jump to conclusions about the theory of evolution.

They often just see 2 sides. God or evolution. It could be a different theory to explain life. Personally there are way too many gaps about the theory of evolution. Even the scientific community is torn. Random is not systematic. We will probably never know. But as the molecular world is revealed like DNA, its complexity makes believing it is all random becomes hard to believe. [quote]In particular, concepts related to gradualism, speciation, natural selection, and extrapolating macroevolutionary trends from microevolutionary trends have been challenged. [/quote]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

likesnatural · 70-79, M

Who said that God doesn't use natural processes to develop things on Earth?

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@likesnatural Why introduce the complication of a magical entity that can't even explain itself? it's simply not needed.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@likesnatural It's certainly one huge self-contradiction!

Who though, holds that contradictory view? The most fervent Biblical literalists, that's who; refusing any model other than some super-conjuror having had everything done and dusted in a week.

They cannot cope with being able to understand and enjoy the natural sciences as seeking to explain the reality and methods of their God's work. Let alone cope with understanding and enjoying them without invoking a supernatural being.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@newjaninev2 who did that? You did. I am talking about a more accurate theory that also makes sense on the molecular level. Most people don't know biochemistry enough to understand

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@ArishMell nobody certainly not me is talking about God. Strictly a theory that addresses things on a molecular level.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@Axeroberts Well, you can't get much more natural than biochenistry!

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Axeroberts [quote]don't know biochemistry enough to understand[/quote]

Try me... you might be pleasantly surprised 😀

Please be as detailed and specific as possible... I'll try to follow along

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@newjaninev2 well genes in the human genome have markers. That is not random

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Axeroberts [quote]That is not random[/quote]

Initially all markers were, being simply variations due to mutation or some-such alteration. Obviously, they tend to travel along across millions of years, often closely associating with other specific genes, as you'd expect, and related markers usually occur near each other on a chromosome (again as you'd expect).

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@newjaninev2 in other words a chemical attraction brought these initial markers together.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Axeroberts "variations due to [i]mutation[/i] or some-such [i]alteration[/i]"

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@newjaninev2 some-such does not have the ring of certainty. These are some of the gaps. There has to be a traceable physical mechanism

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Axeroberts There's obviously a physical mechanism, because here we all are 😀

There are several evidence-based possibilities being explored, and as always in science these will be vigorously and robustly debated. That's a natural and necessary part of science, and one of the reasons it's so vibrant and exciting.

We might never know for sure, and I'm OK with that.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@newjaninev2 exactly. But there is this division that seems to make people take sides and it impedes progress in many ways I find

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Axeroberts The best way to handle it is to simply remove the division... whatever is unnecessary and unhelpful can be dropped into the bin and need trouble us no more.

Identifying that is, of course, guided by [i]evidence[/i]